Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-24323813-20140310033154/@comment-1399757-20140311225123

' @Neildown: Religion has done little to further science. Hindus and Muslims invented the modern numeric system independent of their religion—they would have done it just as well had they been atheists. You could argue that religion enforces moral values, but ultimately, religion is not a tool to ask questions—it is a way to be SATISFIED with a single, ambiguous answer that may or may not be true. Mankind's heritage did come from questioning everything, yes, but that was done independently of religion. '

That's entirely prospective gambling however with no acknowledgement of continuity or consistency with the human psych, which aspires to the deepest aquifers of individual beliefs and values when striving for something from afar. What I showed in actuality however was a refutation of your original point, which is sufficient enough for my assertion here. You specifically stated that religion is a hindrance to science and to human progress, which you can't objectively prove to begin with. None of the mentioned personages made their impact on history "in spite of" their religion: religion was the primary inspirational force behind many of their beliefs and philosophies. In your original assertion you basically debased yourself for this one, as you first claimed that religion hindered science and progress, but now you are claiming that human ingenuity exists and can flourish "regardless" of religious belief - so where's the beef? Unless you can analytically prove that atheists consistently produce more scientific progress than theists or produce it at a faster rate and/or quality regardless of worldly circumstances you're giving a moot point. Anyone can say "The world would be better if it were run my way." Where's the proof though?

'I say religion is "old" because we don't actually need it. Look at the bible—it contains references to old and abandoned scientific beliefs, cultural standards, etc. that were acceptable in the old society but not today. In the bible, women are presented as inferior, but preaching this belief would probably make you a pariah nowadays. Long story short, religion is rooted in the old ways, where humans were ignorant and the culture was vastly different.'

That's a point entirely subjective to the rest of the debate. We don't know if we need religion according to the current state of the discussion and it is therefore beside the point. Referencing the Bible doesn't help much here because I can guarantee no Christian looks at the Bible the same way you do. You're citing it from a perspective entirely irrelevant to its application in the real world, at least from my stance as a Catholic. From experience it is unlikely you understand the application or level of significance of it to Christian theology. I know more than one atheist who apparently read the entire Bible completely through and I can attest to the fact that it was a waste of their time - they didn't read it with the intention or the ability to glean anything relevant to Christian or Jewish theism (The Pentateuch) from it. The whole point is that it is a volume of aspirational value: not to mention there is little hope of understanding it unless one already grasps the traditions that are supposed to come as its vanguard and companion. Hence why we are told to " proclaim the word of the Lord" not just print it. There are things in the Bible that cannot be understood without context that comes in the form of verbal teaching and teaching through example, or alternatively without a thoroughly seeking conscience as opposed to a hyper-critical one with an agenda.

That aside, the Bible is nothing less than a timeless acknowledgement of basic human truths, in the context of just a narrow portion of its philosophical significance anyway. Whether you are a caveman or a modern youth I'm sure you marvel at life, ponder your existence, fear for your or others lives when in danger, are angered at injustice, mournful of death, seek justice against perpetrators. And that's actually part of the staying in context part. We're all human and we all have questions to be answered, inclinations to discern, unravel, and master. We also do this with the knowledge that we are but a blip within the spectrum, and as such we are called to discern, listen, and understand what we're told through our lives. The Bible is a compilation of these accounts - various and contrasting in authors and styles, but these accounts gathered throughout a 1500 year period are "somehow" entirely consistent with one another in establishing a singular system of morals, ethics, and obedience toward none other than what we can profess to be God - the author of nature and all that "is". It's teachings are, always have been, and will continue to be applicable in human life, as they are based in truths of human nature. Even the most die-hard militant atheist acknowledges the First Commandment in his own way - for he cannot stand the worship of anything less than the god he knows to be true, which is simply a lack thereof. The deities are different, and so the motives may be as well, but the basic application is not. All men have a god - it's just a question of who or what, and to what degree.

Your own philosophy is also not so shiny and new as it is oft misrepresented to be either: it's no secret that atheism and theism both grew up together - except atheism has always had the experience of being a minority and does not really seem to have much continuity up until the French Revolution. The fact that a particularly large amount of atheists have recently made it into the scientific field is no evidence of it being a fresh, brand new concept, nor is it evidence of philosophical superiority. All that has changed is that there are a significant amount of first-world atheists. They have adopted first-world principles and now seem to propose that those values will remain static in their philosophy regardless of the fact that there is no static moral code of conduct in atheism to begin with.

'When I say that there is no evidence for religion, I might have come across as being a bit vague. Religion is not just God, religion is all the stuff that surrounds His rules, actions, etc (Jesus this, Muhammad that). Religion does not have any significant evidence to support its outlandish claims (except the odd logical arguement which is countered by another logical arguement).'

That one is easy then - still vague though. If God does exist, then we have but to discern what rules are His via logic and acknowledgement of possible revelation, which of course we can expect from a sentient Creator. Naturally there is no reason not to obey God's rules if we know they are God's rules, however arbitrary they may seem at first glance. That's where the element of faith comes in. In Christian theism we believe God gives us commands through His teachings and sometimes through revelation, as well as allows evil to beset us for the sake of building us up in the end. As with the Marines, you get broken down and built up stronger. One can complain about the process if one must, but one can't really argue with the end result.

'On the "first cause": Let us say that the Big Bang happened (there is actually evidence to support it). That is when time originated—there was no TIME before that. So...why must there be a first cause? In fact—what caused god? '

We don't know that though do we? You can say time did not exist relative to our own universe, but what lies underneath/beyond our universe? But I digress. The fact of time or its nonexistence is of no consequence to an eternal and perfect self-contingent entity which would necessarily have predated that scenario - God is not subject to time to begin with. You're thinking in terms of limiting "THE ORIGINAL" entity within the contingent laws of its own making, which is not consistent with the Christian-proposed model of God - hence your assertion is not relevant to Christianity.

Your last question is entirely paradoxical because you're asking "what creating the first thing"? "The first thing" could not possibly be created by something else - thus it has to be something that is self-existing, effervescent, and exists beyond the measure of physical logicality and even our physical, tangible laws: ie. spirituality. Or, translating to lingo more familiar to you, it is "an alternative dimension/reality necessary for our universe's inception." Religion, if anything, is ahead of its own time, which is part of its prophetical function.

'All in all, atheism and science do not answer everything. I accept that. As humans, we must continue searching for answers and not be satisfied with an explanation unless we have SOLID PROOF. '

In which case you have no reason to worry about the "lack of speed" with which religion supposedly approaches science and social perfection. Not to mention the fact that slow and steady has always been a staple of honest science for a good reason anyway. It takes time and deliberation to establish facts with utter certainty, as well as how they will be applied to the real world. It also takes time to develop and understand human psychology as well as social pros and stigmas (what works and what does not) without causing societal issues in the process. For a philosophy dead-set on understanding objective truth and nothing but the truth, atheism does a very good job of jumping the gun on things it cannot yet hope to objectively prove, at least in the case of the radical members of your philosophy such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. That type of atheism also does a good job of hesitating on everything that is really quite irrelevant according to its own estimation and evaluation of human existence, social orientation and mental orientation. Not-god doesn't even have the capacity to care whether one believes in Jesus, a void, or Richard Simmons the Almighty Sweatmaster. That said, there is in actuality no legitimate reason not to be religious aside from solely relative/personal points of view. Objective fact expresses no qualms with honest religion in science or in social improvement except according to an opinionated crowd.

'Religion necessitates being satisfied with an explanation and not searching beyond that. This is why I condemn religion more than I condemn the idea of a god—I will not accept the idea of a god until I am absolutely sure "it" exists, but I will always condemn religion for being audaciously satisfied with unfounded knowledge. '

Nope. People devote their entire lives to understanding and unravelling theistic truths - it is anything but a stagnant science. In any case, seeing is not always believing. Believing does not necessitate seeing. Given the fact that we alternatively face an indifferent abyss, there is literally nothing to lose by paying homage to God through religion even if God doesn't exist by any and all means knwon to man. Because that's not the case, to stay at an impasse of indifference is a groundless lack of accounting for potential circumstances (heaven, hell) in favor of contingent priorities that will come to nothing in the end anyway. No one has a legitimate right to criticize a man for such preparation of its own.

Thank you for your opinion Neildown :)

And to you as well. A debate of good will is hard to come by on the Internet, but I am happy to participate in this one with you.